|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 7, 2019 15:13:29 GMT
I have seen rumours about route 245 being extended to North Finchley. Maybe this is why. Alternatively, they could extend route 134 from North Finchley to Golders Green.  The 134 just got cut in the CLBCs so TfL won't be so quick on extending it anywhere. The issue is that 13 has to cope with the Central London so I think the 245 is a good option. Although it appears that the 112 is now TfL's preferred choice to extend to North Finchley. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 7, 2019 17:50:51 GMT
The 134 just got cut in the CLBCs so TfL won't be so quick on extending it anywhere. The issue is that 13 has to cope with the Central London so I think the 245 is a good option. Although it appears that the 112 is now TfL's preferred choice to extend to North Finchley. Which is even worse than extending the 245! |
|
|
|
Post by secretbu5dude on Sept 12, 2019 9:26:19 GMT
Although it appears that the 112 is now TfL's preferred choice to extend to North Finchley. Which is even worse than extending the 245! Might not be so ba......*ahem "Hanger Lane hotspot traffic* |
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Sept 12, 2019 17:47:27 GMT
The proposed changes to the 266 defy understanding and are certainly not in the interests of the bus passenger. I would be interested to see the data that TfL are using to justify the change.
Reliability problems at the southern end of the 266 are nothing new as I have stated before on this forum. In the late 1960s/early 1970s the Labour M.P. for Acton(Nigel Spearing),would regularly use the letters column of the West London Observer to harangue London Transport about the service provided by the 260 and 266 between Acton and Hammersmith in the peak hours. In those days the terminus was in the stretch of Hammersmith Grove between Beadon Road and King Street and it was not unusual to see an orderly queue from the stand in Hammersmith Grove tail back and then round the corner into King Street and stretch nearly to Hammersmith Broadway. Even in those far off days congestion would disrupt timetables but two other contributing factors were the length of the routes and the garage allocations. 266s operated shorts to Cricklewood Garage and regular journeys through to Edgware Station. On the 260 the Hammersmith journeys only went to North Finchley, although I think there were a few through journeys from Barnet on a Saturday when an all day service ran to Hammersmith. A combination of Cricklewood, Stonebridge Park, Willesden and Finchley garages ran the routes. The demands of facilitating crew reliefs meant that the central and northern parts of the routes received a better service with the southern portion often unavoidably starved of resources.
On June 13th 1970 as part of a large route reorganisation scheme in North West London LT made an effort to do something about the lengths of the routes. The 266 was withdrawn north of Cricklewood Garage except for some journeys continuing to West Hendon (Monday-Friday, evenings excepted) and a further extension to Colindale Station in peak hours. This replaced a facility that had previously been operated by the 245 which was converted to O.M.O. on the same day and diverted via the previous route of the 16 to Sudbury Town Station. With these changes the 260 no longer reached Hammersmith. No effort was made at this time to redress the geographical garage allocation imbalance so Hammersmith could still be starved of buses.
The withdrawal of the 255 in June 1972 provided an opportunity to improve the number of buses on the 266 reaching Hammersmith as a small Monday to Saturday allocation was introduced at Riverside Garage. The main allocation remained at Cricklewood with 22 buses compared to just 6 from Riverside. The new small allocation did slightly improve the flow of buses to Hammersmith but not necessarily from Hammersmith. If a bus departed from Riverside Garage it could not serve the busy terminal stop in Hammersmith Grove and crews were adept at swinging fast into King Street and to the stop outside Marks and Spencer and swiftly departing leaving behind passengers running from Hammersmith Grove. Another factor in the poor service on the 266 was the renowned militancy of crews at Cricklewood Garage who frequently went on strike for all sorts of reasons. In those days if there was a local dispute at a garage then that garage claimed an operating zone that other garages would not enter. Instead garages that were still working would operate what was called compensatory mileage. Many a time when Cricklewood went on strike the 6 Riverside buses provided a service between Hammersmith and the old Harlesden(Willesden Junction) stand. On some sites/books there can be found a picture of a rare working of freshly overhauled RT1641 on the 266. It is pictured on the old Hammersmith Grove stand and is blinded for Harlesden(Willesden Junction) as this was a day that Criclewood were on strike. That was the only day I had a ride on a RT on the 266!
In 1976 the 266 was extended/bifurcated to Brent Cross. Interestingly LT had intended the Brent Cross journeys to be numbered 266, with the Colindale journeys numbered 266A. As well as the Monday to Friday peak hour service to Colindale a service was also introduced on Saturdays(evenings excepted). The two routes would have been jointly scheduled and I presume the union at Cricklewood soon objected and so the parent 266 number was retained for all journeys. In about 1977 I remember a Riverside 266 arriving at Hammersmith in the evening peak to be greeted by a massive crowd. It was obvious that there had not been a departure for a significant amount of time. Immediately the passengers swarmed the arriving bus. Only problem the incoming crew were either going on their break or finishing. The inspector on duty was desperate and the passengers were extremely irate. The inspector had fear in his eyes as the passengers seemd to be on the point of lynching somebody from LT if a 266 bus did not leave soon. The reason I am recalling this anecdote is that when the crew appreciated that things were getting very tense they agreed to do overtime. When the crowd was consulted the consensus was that the 266 needed to go at least as far as Harlesden(note NOT Acton Vale!), if the needs of the passengers were to be met and so a very heavily overloaded bus departed for Craven Park. In October 1978 Stage 2 of Busplan saw the 260 return to Hammersmith, once again paralleling the 266 all the way to Cricklewood Broadway, but at the same time the Monday- Friday Riverside allocation was withdrawn leaving just a Saturday contribution.
LT, LRT and TfL all regularly looked at doing some more route surgery. The 260 got diverted over the old 12/short lived 255 to Shepherds Bush in the 1980s leaving Hammersmith again just to the 266. Every time they looked at the problem they backed away stating that there was no obvious place to divide the 266 without causing significant inconvenience. The present TfL regime can at least be given credit for actually trying to remedy a long running problem, however, as most people on this forum have already said their 218/306 solution for the southern end of the present 266 seems bound to cause inconvenience to passengers.
We are frequently told that TfL look at passenger flows rather than individual routes when planning changes. In the past that was true of the old LT and they used that information to tailor resources to demand along the busiest section of routes by scheduling short journeys. On the 260/266 apart from curtailed late running journeys there were regular scheduled journeys on the 260/266 to Acton Vale(Bromyard Avenue), but they were always from the north. There were never scheduled short workings from Hammersmith to Acton Vale because of the large flow of passengers wanting to at least reach Acton High Street if not points further north. Now as has been said frequently on here TfL propose to provide most seats only as far as Acton Vale with a far smaller number of seats on the 218 for central Acton bound passengers. It is just pure meanness because of TfL's current budgetary problems mixed with a worrying contempt for passengers that causes TfL to refuse to allow the 306 to carry on to the erstwhile 70 stand that still exists in Acton.
In general TfL are inflicting deliberate pain on passengers in West London. The 218/440 swop between Acton and North Acton once again disregards passenger flows. I presume the E4 when introduced was based on some sort of data/research that led to the H40 and the present 440. I am not on the route everyday but when I have travelled on it or observed it passengers in the West Acton/Noel Road area mainly want to go to Asda at Park Royal or the Central Middlesex Hospital when travelling north. This is a long established passenger flow created and maintained by LT/LRT/TfL that now is to be suddenly broken.
The Hammersmith Bridge fiasco has also been well debated. The failure of the bridge should not have come as any surprise to TfL. It was on the cards. TfL should have had a contingency plan. Such a plan should have been based on passenger flows and other data. You would not have thought it from the cack handed response. I am not going to go over the full details of the frequent route changes that have occurred since the bridge failure and the subsequent overbussing of parts of Barnes. Just one point, I still cannot understand why TfL will not just divert the 72 via Putney Bridge as they have done many times in the past.
The proposed 218/306 scheme involves the shortening of the 391. If TfL really did know local bus networks then they would see this as an opportunity to restore a longstanding passenger flow that they disrupted awhile back. The Wellesley Road area of Chiwick/Gunnersbury has had a bus service dating back to probably the 1930s even though it is not far from Chiswick High Road. Traditionally the service was provided by the 91 and then the H91. When improvements were made to the H91 with I think the help of some Section 106 money it was proposed that in order to speed up journeys the H91 would be diverted direct via Gunnersbury Station and replaced by an extension of the 440 from Turnham Green to Chiswick (Power Road). When consulted local passengers said that the 440 apart from Turnham Green,did not take them to where they wanted to go. They suggested that the 440 remain at Turnham Green and the 391 be diverted via Wellesley Road. TfL ridiculouly said it would cause too much inconvenience to through passengers. Although telling passengers they have to get off one bus to get on another using the Hopper fare arrangement obviously is not an inconvenience in TfL eyes!!! The result has been TfL paid for a new stand on Wellesley Road and the 440 had very light loadings on this section. Recent changes in the area mean that the 440 takes a circuitous route between Gunnersbury Station and Turnham Green. If the 391 went via Wellesley Road then residents would have restored to them bus links to where they want to go and the 440 could go direct from Chiswick Businees Park to Turnham Green, thus maybe tempting some of the office workers there to use it to do a bit of shopping or grab a sandwich or coffee on Chiwick High Road.
Basically this post is about not been able to understand the thinking at TfL. Local knowlege appears to be poor. Information about passenger flows is often ignored. Contradictory positions will be taken to suit the situation. As I said earlier I will give credit to TfL for trying to attempt to solve the long running problem about the length of the 266, however, the proposed solution is so appalling that the present situation is infinitely better. So TfL consider the 266 needs pruning in this part of West London, but then hold on surely such thinking would not come up with the extension of the 112 to North Finchley! If TfL think that the 112 can operate efficiently between Ealing Broadway and North Finchley then they should be allowing the 266 to continue to run between Hammersmith and Brent Cross.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Sept 12, 2019 20:28:07 GMT
The proposed changes to the 266 defy understanding and are certainly not in the interests of the bus passenger. I would be interested to see the data that TfL are using to justify the change. Reliability problems at the southern end of the 266 are nothing new as I have stated before on this forum. In the late 1960s/early 1970s the Labour M.P. for Acton(Nigel Spearing),would regularly use the letters column of the West London Observer to harangue London Transport about the service provided by the 260 and 266 between Acton and Hammersmith in the peak hours. In those days the terminus was in the stretch of Hammersmith Grove between Beadon Road and King Street and it was not unusual to see an orderly queue from the stand in Hammersmith Grove tail back and then round the corner into King Street and stretch nearly to Hammersmith Broadway. Even in those far off days congestion would disrupt timetables but two other contributing factors were the length of the routes and the garage allocations. 266s operated shorts to Cricklewood Garage and regular journeys through to Edgware Station. On the 260 the Hammersmith journeys only went to North Finchley, although I think there were a few through journeys from Barnet on a Saturday when an all day service ran to Hammersmith. A combination of Cricklewood, Stonebridge Park, Willesden and Finchley garages ran the routes. The demands of facilitating crew reliefs meant that the central and northern parts of the routes received a better service with the southern portion often unavoidably starved of resources. On June 13th 1970 as part of a large route reorganisation scheme in North West London LT made an effort to do something about the lengths of the routes. The 266 was withdrawn north of Cricklewood Garage except for some journeys continuing to West Hendon (Monday-Friday, evenings excepted) and a further extension to Colindale Station in peak hours. This replaced a facility that had previously been operated by the 245 which was converted to O.M.O. on the same day and diverted via the previous route of the 16 to Sudbury Town Station. With these changes the 260 no longer reached Hammersmith. No effort was made at this time to redress the geographical garage allocation imbalance so Hammersmith could still be starved of buses. The withdrawal of the 255 in June 1972 provided an opportunity to improve the number of buses on the 266 reaching Hammersmith as a small Monday to Saturday allocation was introduced at Riverside Garage. The main allocation remained at Cricklewood with 22 buses compared to just 6 from Riverside. The new small allocation did slightly improve the flow of buses to Hammersmith but not necessarily from Hammersmith. If a bus departed from Riverside Garage it could not serve the busy terminal stop in Hammersmith Grove and crews were adept at swinging fast into King Street and to the stop outside Marks and Spencer and swiftly departing leaving behind passengers running from Hammersmith Grove. Another factor in the poor service on the 266 was the renowned militancy of crews at Cricklewood Garage who frequently went on strike for all sorts of reasons. In those days if there was a local dispute at a garage then that garage claimed an operating zone that other garages would not enter. Instead garages that were still working would operate what was called compensatory mileage. Many a time when Cricklewood went on strike the 6 Riverside buses provided a service between Hammersmith and the old Harlesden(Willesden Junction) stand. On some sites/books there can be found a picture of a rare working of freshly overhauled RT1641 on the 266. It is pictured on the old Hammersmith Grove stand and is blinded for Harlesden(Willesden Junction) as this was a day that Criclewood were on strike. That was the only day I had a ride on a RT on the 266! In 1976 the 266 was extended/bifurcated to Brent Cross. Interestingly LT had intended the Brent Cross journeys to be numbered 266, with the Colindale journeys numbered 266A. As well as the Monday to Friday peak hour service to Colindale a service was also introduced on Saturdays(evenings excepted). The two routes would have been jointly scheduled and I presume the union at Cricklewood soon objected and so the parent 266 number was retained for all journeys. In about 1977 I remember a Riverside 266 arriving at Hammersmith in the evening peak to be greeted by a massive crowd. It was obvious that there had not been a departure for a significant amount of time. Immediately the passengers swarmed the arriving bus. Only problem the incoming crew were either going on their break or finishing. The inspector on duty was desperate and the passengers were extremely irate. The inspector had fear in his eyes as the passengers seemd to be on the point of lynching somebody from LT if a 266 bus did not leave soon. The reason I am recalling this anecdote is that when the crew appreciated that things were getting very tense they agreed to do overtime. When the crowd was consulted the consensus was that the 266 needed to go at least as far as Harlesden(note NOT Acton Vale!), if the needs of the passengers were to be met and so a very heavily overloaded bus departed for Craven Park. In October 1978 Stage 2 of Busplan saw the 260 return to Hammersmith, once again paralleling the 266 all the way to Cricklewood Broadway, but at the same time the Monday- Friday Riverside allocation was withdrawn leaving just a Saturday contribution. LT, LRT and TfL all regularly looked at doing some more route surgery. The 260 got diverted over the old 12/short lived 255 to Shepherds Bush in the 1980s leaving Hammersmith again just to the 266. Every time they looked at the problem they backed away stating that there was no obvious place to divide the 266 without causing significant inconvenience. The present TfL regime can at least be given credit for actually trying to remedy a long running problem, however, as most people on this forum have already said their 218/306 solution for the southern end of the present 266 seems bound to cause inconvenience to passengers. We are frequently told that TfL look at passenger flows rather than individual routes when planning changes. In the past that was true of the old LT and they used that information to tailor resources to demand along the busiest section of routes by scheduling short journeys. On the 260/266 apart from curtailed late running journeys there were regular scheduled journeys on the 260/266 to Acton Vale(Bromyard Avenue), but they were always from the north. There were never scheduled short workings from Hammersmith to Acton Vale because of the large flow of passengers wanting to at least reach Acton High Street if not points further north. Now as has been said frequently on here TfL propose to provide most seats only as far as Acton Vale with a far smaller number of seats on the 218 for central Acton bound passengers. It is just pure meanness because of TfL's current budgetary problems mixed with a worrying contempt for passengers that causes TfL to refuse to allow the 306 to carry on to the erstwhile 70 stand that still exists in Acton. In general TfL are inflicting deliberate pain on passengers in West London. The 218/440 swop between Acton and North Acton once again disregards passenger flows. I presume the E4 when introduced was based on some sort of data/research that led to the H40 and the present 440. I am not on the route everyday but when I have travelled on it or observed it passengers in the West Acton/Noel Road area mainly want to go to Asda at Park Royal or the Central Middlesex Hospital when travelling north. This is a long established passenger flow created and maintained by LT/LRT/TfL that now is to be suddenly broken. The Hammersmith Bridge fiasco has also been well debated. The failure of the bridge should not have come as any surprise to TfL. It was on the cards. TfL should have had a contingency plan. Such a plan should have been based on passenger flows and other data. You would not have thought it from the cack handed response. I am not going to go over the full details of the frequent route changes that have occurred since the bridge failure and the subsequent overbussing of parts of Barnes. Just one point, I still cannot understand why TfL will not just divert the 72 via Putney Bridge as they have done many times in the past. The proposed 218/306 scheme involves the shortening of the 391. If TfL really did know local bus networks then they would see this as an opportunity to restore a longstanding passenger flow that they disrupted awhile back. The Wellesley Road area of Chiwick/Gunnersbury has had a bus service dating back to probably the 1930s even though it is not far from Chiswick High Road. Traditionally the service was provided by the 91 and then the H91. When improvements were made to the H91 with I think the help of some Section 106 money it was proposed that in order to speed up journeys the H91 would be diverted direct via Gunnersbury Station and replaced by an extension of the 440 from Turnham Green to Chiswick (Power Road). When consulted local passengers said that the 440 apart from Turnham Green,did not take them to where they wanted to go. They suggested that the 440 remain at Turnham Green and the 391 be diverted via Wellesley Road. TfL ridiculouly said it would cause too much inconvenience to through passengers. Although telling passengers they have to get off one bus to get on another using the Hopper fare arrangement obviously is not an inconvenience in TfL eyes!!! The result has been TfL paid for a new stand on Wellesley Road and the 440 had very light loadings on this section. Recent changes in the area mean that the 440 takes a circuitous route between Gunnersbury Station and Turnham Green. If the 391 went via Wellesley Road then residents would have restored to them bus links to where they want to go and the 440 could go direct from Chiswick Businees Park to Turnham Green, thus maybe tempting some of the office workers there to use it to do a bit of shopping or grab a sandwich or coffee on Chiwick High Road. Basically this post is about not been able to understand the thinking at TfL. Local knowlege appears to be poor. Information about passenger flows is often ignored. Contradictory positions will be taken to suit the situation. As I said earlier I will give credit to TfL for trying to attempt to solve the long running problem about the length of the 266, however, the proposed solution is so appalling that the present situation is infinitely better. So TfL consider the 266 needs pruning in this part of West London, but then hold on surely such thinking would not come up with the extension of the 112 to North Finchley! If TfL think that the 112 can operate efficiently between Ealing Broadway and North Finchley then they should be allowing the 266 to continue to run between Hammersmith and Brent Cross. If I could give a five star 'like' to your post I'd do so. How poorly served passengers between Hammersmith and Acton have very often been over the decades, not necessarily on a day-by-day basis, but whenever problems have occurred elsewhere on the 260 and 266, be they related to traffic congestion and consequent impact on crew changes, industrial action or any other consideration. What I would term as 'compartmentalised thinking' in the bus traffic office at HQ has led to this situation. Hammersmith Trolleybus Depot (HB) never had any involvement as far as I'm aware on the 660 or 666 predecessor trollevbus routes, nor on the ex-LUT 657 and 667 down King Street. Their reason for existence was to provide the vitally important 630 route between Harrow Road, Scrubs Lane, and West Croydon, and if any consideration was ever given to providing more services in different directions at Hammersmith, I'd imagine the main constraints would have been depot size and the necessity, even in those days, for 'doubling back' on depot journeys, not that it would be insuperable with determination allied to the presence of roadside inspectors at Hammersmith Grove, which occurred anyway. Thus, when HB closed with the trolleys, it was S that provided the replacement buses, with Riverside garage (R) similarly constrained sizewise to HB. Even so, LT should have abandoned their tramline thinking and considered the possibility of providing a garage allocation at or towards the southern end of the 260/266, if not R, then S or, even, V, maybe even AF, though I could foresee big problems with that! What about Acton Tram Depot? Just because it had never been done before was no reason not to weigh it up. The main advantage of diesel bus over electric trolleybus, after all, was greater flexibility of movement. During the short few weeks when I was responsible for bus stops in West London in the early 1970s, I remember trying to catch a 105 from Shepherds Bush to Southall, the huge gap in service with no alternative, and the shrug of the shoulders when I approached the West London service planner (my superior by several grades!) to delicately mention my experience.No-one seemed to want to know, and I suspect it was a very common experience. Now it appears TfL acknowledges a more reliable service has to be provided at the southern end, but short of any of the main traffic objectives, and seems to believe that a single decker will suffice for that purpose, which it just might if if it was on old Gold Arrow headways but not on what is being proposed. As you say, why on earth can't it be extended to the 70's old terminus at the very least? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 12, 2019 20:44:54 GMT
The much better idea would still be the new 218 every 8-10 mins with DDs from Hammersmith to North Acton. A simple split similar for the 2/432, 260/460, 149/349 etc. Simply localise the 266 and maintain the most popular link from Hammersmith to Acton with DDs.
|
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Sept 13, 2019 17:00:36 GMT
The much better idea would still be the new 218 every 8-10 mins with DDs from Hammersmith to North Acton. A simple split similar for the 2/432, 260/460, 149/349 etc. Simply localise the 266 and maintain the most popular link from Hammersmith to Acton with DDs. If TfL is going to go ahead with the 218/266/306 proposals then your suggestion make sense, however, it would be better if the 218 rather than terminating at North Acton Station was routed direct via Park Royal Road to terminate at either Park Royal Asda or Central Middlesex Hospital. This would maintain much valued connections for passengers in the West Acton area. If passemgers from the Noel Road area wish to access the Central Line then I think most of them would do that from West Acton. What I cannot understand is an organisation that finally decides to grasp the nettle and truncates the 266 in the name of improving reliability because of the length of the route, virtually simultaneously proposes to extend a route a couple of miles away i.e. the 112 to North Finchley. The new length of the 112 added to the problems of congestion on the North Circular Road is bound to be a recipe for late running/uneven headways/curtailments. In my original post I forgot to include in my litany of woes inflicted on the West London bus network the withdrawal of the 10. A popular and longstanding connection between Hammersmith/Olympia/Kensington and Oxford Street replaced by the ultimate route designed by an organisation more concerned by operational convenience than passenger needs i.e. the reformed 23. Any 'new' links provided already better served by the 27/28/52/295/328 or 452. If TfL are really concerned about getting people away from Uber then they are not going the right way about it. Mind you an organisation that claims that it wants people to travel by bus and then in its own literature frequently cites buses as being a cause of congestion and pollution should not be taken too seriously. During the next mayoral election what is happening to the bus network should be a major issue but I doubt that it will happen. So sad to see the progress made at the start of the millenium being wilfully and systematically whittled away by the body authorised to provide Londoners with the best public transport possible. Financial constraints are making TfL's job difficult, but incompetence appears to be playing just as big a role in delivering a markedly worse bus service. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 13, 2019 17:15:11 GMT
The much better idea would still be the new 218 every 8-10 mins with DDs from Hammersmith to North Acton. A simple split similar for the 2/432, 260/460, 149/349 etc. Simply localise the 266 and maintain the most popular link from Hammersmith to Acton with DDs. If TfL is going to go ahead with the 218/266/306 proposals then your suggestion make sense, however, it would be better if the 218 rather than terminating at North Acton Station was routed direct via Park Royal Road to terminate at either Park Royal Asda or Central Middlesex Hospital. This would maintain much valued connections for passengers in the West Acton area. If passemgers from the Noel Road area wish to access the Central Line then I think most of them would do that from West Acton. What I cannot understand is an organisation that finally decides to grasp the nettle and truncates the 266 in the name of improving reliability because of the length of the route, virtually simultaneously proposes to extend a route a couple of miles away i.e. the 112 to North Finchley. The new length of the 112 added to the problems of congestion on the North Circular Road is bound to be a recipe for late running/uneven headways/curtailments. In my original post I forgot to include in my litany of woes inflicted on the West London bus network the withdrawal of the 10. A popular and longstanding connection between Hammersmith/Olympia/Kensington and Oxford Street replaced by the ultimate route designed by an organisation more concerned by operational convenience than passenger needs i.e. the reformed 23. Any 'new' links provided already better served by the 27/28/52/295/328 or 452. If TfL are really concerned about getting people away from Uber then they are not going the right way about it. Mind you an organisation that claims that it wants people to travel by bus and then in its own literature frequently cites buses as being a cause of congestion and pollution should not be taken too seriously. During the next mayoral election what is happening to the bus network should be a major issue but I doubt that it will happen. So sad to see the progress made at the start of the millenium being wilfully and systematically whittled away by the body authorised to provide Londoners with the best public transport possible. Financial constraints are making TfL's job difficult, but incompetence appears to be playing just as big a role in delivering a markedly worse bus service. That post was music to my ears.
I agree with you completely about the 218. Asda actually helped to fund the 440 in the first place, but now TfL are meddling with it, and its scandalous. I went to a meeting about buses in Ealing/Acton which was full of West Acton residents lambasting Geoff Hobbs for the decision to ruin the 440, the rerouting via Horn Lane is an idiotic move, and breaks useful local links. West Acton residents use the 440 as their link to Asda in Park Royal, but of course that's now being needlessly broken, and extending the 218 on to Central Middlesex Hospital would've averted these problems but stupidly TfL didn't think to do it. One resident said 'We don't want to go to Hammersmith, all we care about is our link to the Asda.' Geoff Hobbs was clutching at straws at this meeting with weak arguments such as 'rerouting the 440 allows to connect Crossrail to Chiswick Business Park.' One resident had a brilliant rebuttle to this, and it was something akin to: 'What makes you think that someone would want to get of Crossrail at Acton Mainline, where only some trains will stop, and wait for the infrequent 440 bus which will take over half an hour to the business park, it would be faster to go to Ealing Broadway, where all Crossrail trains will stop, and get the District Line to Chiswick Park.' The 440 should certainly be kept running through West Acton, and on to Central Middlesex Hospital. Meanwhile, the 218 would be better off going up Horn Lane, then following the proposed 440 routing from North Acton on to Wembley, which would have created brilliant new radial links.
|
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Sept 13, 2019 17:53:52 GMT
If TfL is going to go ahead with the 218/266/306 proposals then your suggestion make sense, however, it would be better if the 218 rather than terminating at North Acton Station was routed direct via Park Royal Road to terminate at either Park Royal Asda or Central Middlesex Hospital. This would maintain much valued connections for passengers in the West Acton area. If passemgers from the Noel Road area wish to access the Central Line then I think most of them would do that from West Acton. What I cannot understand is an organisation that finally decides to grasp the nettle and truncates the 266 in the name of improving reliability because of the length of the route, virtually simultaneously proposes to extend a route a couple of miles away i.e. the 112 to North Finchley. The new length of the 112 added to the problems of congestion on the North Circular Road is bound to be a recipe for late running/uneven headways/curtailments. In my original post I forgot to include in my litany of woes inflicted on the West London bus network the withdrawal of the 10. A popular and longstanding connection between Hammersmith/Olympia/Kensington and Oxford Street replaced by the ultimate route designed by an organisation more concerned by operational convenience than passenger needs i.e. the reformed 23. Any 'new' links provided already better served by the 27/28/52/295/328 or 452. If TfL are really concerned about getting people away from Uber then they are not going the right way about it. Mind you an organisation that claims that it wants people to travel by bus and then in its own literature frequently cites buses as being a cause of congestion and pollution should not be taken too seriously. During the next mayoral election what is happening to the bus network should be a major issue but I doubt that it will happen. So sad to see the progress made at the start of the millenium being wilfully and systematically whittled away by the body authorised to provide Londoners with the best public transport possible. Financial constraints are making TfL's job difficult, but incompetence appears to be playing just as big a role in delivering a markedly worse bus service. That post was music to my ears. I agree with you completely about the 218. Asda actually helped to fund the 440 in the first place, but now TfL are meddling with it, and its scandalous. I went to a meeting about buses in Ealing/Acton which was fulling of West Acton residents lambasting Geoff Hobbs for the decision to ruin the 440, the rerouting via Horn Lane is an idiotic move, and breaks useful local links. West Acton residents use the 440 as their link to Asda in Park Royal, but of course that's now being needlessly broken, and extending the 218 on to Central Middlesex Hospital would've averted these problems but stupidly TfL didn't think to do it. One resident said 'We don't want to go to Hammersmith, all we care about is our link to the Asda.' Geoff Hobbs was clutching at straws at this meeting with weak arguments such as 'rerouting the 440 allows to connect Crossrail to Chiswick Business Park.' One resident had a brilliant rebuttle to this, and it was something akin to: 'What makes you think that someone would want to get of Crossrail at Acton Mainline, where only some trains will stop, and wait for the infrequent 440 bus which will take over half an hour to the business park, it would be faster to go to Ealing Broadway, where all Crossrail trains will stop, and get the District Line to Chiswick Park.' The 440 should certainly be kept running through West Acton, and on to Central Middlesex Hospital. Meanwhile, the 218 would be better off going up Horn Lane, then following the proposed 440 routing from North Acton on to Wembley, which would have created brilliant new radial links.
My comments are based on observations and could be dismissed as not telling the whole picture, but your report of the meeting you attended regarding these proposals is further proof that TfL wilfully ignore passengers flows if they do not match with their grand ideas. These changes are linked to Crossrail but as the attendee at the meeting clearly stated to the TfL representative it would make more sense for somebody to get off at Ealing Broadway and travel to Gunnersbury Station to access Chiswick Business Park. You are absolutely right, the proposed 218 should continue up Horn Lane to North Acton Station and be double decked, whilst the 440 should continue via West Acton so that passengers can get to where they want to go. What is it that is so difficult for TfL to understand? If they really are so perplexed about this then I am sure that there are many members of this forum who for free would spare their time and do them a drawing or two of the area and explain the needs of bus passengers in the area. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Sept 14, 2019 11:35:42 GMT
The proposals here I just think are full of missed opportunity, though I appreciate the financial constraints. (That being said the tide is turning and there’s a few frequency increases that are coming)!
I think rif153 raises a good point about the 440 and Acton Main Line. If you’re going to Chiswick Business Park, why would you make two payments, a train and a bus from Acton Main Line, when you can just go to Ealing Broadway, catch the District (every 10 mins) and make the short walk from Chiswick Park. I would say though that the 440 going through Horn Lane and serving Acton Main Line would allow a fully accessible journey to CBP so that’s always something to consider. CBP isn’t very well served by buses since the 27 was unfortunately cut.
Speaking of Ealing Broadway to CBP, wasn’t there a proposal to extend the E10 there? Shame it didn’t happen.
Surely there’s space to add 2 PVR to get the 306 to Acton High Street. Surely.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 14, 2019 13:13:49 GMT
The proposals here I just think are full of missed opportunity, though I appreciate the financial constraints. (That being said the tide is turning and there’s a few frequency increases that are coming)! I think rif153 raises a good point about the 440 and Acton Main Line. If you’re going to Chiswick Business Park, why would you make two payments, a train and a bus from Acton Main Line, when you can just go to Ealing Broadway, catch the District (every 10 mins) and make the short walk from Chiswick Park. I would say though that the 440 going through Horn Lane and serving Acton Main Line would allow a fully accessible journey to CBP so that’s always something to consider. CBP isn’t very well served by buses since the 27 was unfortunately cut. Speaking of Ealing Broadway to CBP, wasn’t there a proposal to extend the E10 there? Shame it didn’t happen. Surely there’s space to add 2 PVR to get the 306 to Acton High Street. Surely. Though the frequency increases are pretty much centred on Outer London and areas where Crossrail runs. Inner London continues to wrongly bear the brunt particularly areas which rely on buses such as Inner South & South East London - I’m sceptical that had the 249 or 432 not run into the boroughs of Croydon, let alone Bromley, neither would receive frequency increases. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 14, 2019 16:49:02 GMT
The proposals here I just think are full of missed opportunity, though I appreciate the financial constraints. (That being said the tide is turning and there’s a few frequency increases that are coming)! I think rif153 raises a good point about the 440 and Acton Main Line. If you’re going to Chiswick Business Park, why would you make two payments, a train and a bus from Acton Main Line, when you can just go to Ealing Broadway, catch the District (every 10 mins) and make the short walk from Chiswick Park. I would say though that the 440 going through Horn Lane and serving Acton Main Line would allow a fully accessible journey to CBP so that’s always something to consider. CBP isn’t very well served by buses since the 27 was unfortunately cut. Speaking of Ealing Broadway to CBP, wasn’t there a proposal to extend the E10 there? Shame it didn’t happen. Surely there’s space to add 2 PVR to get the 306 to Acton High Street. Surely. Though the frequency increases are pretty much centred on Outer London and areas where Crossrail runs. Inner London continues to wrongly bear the brunt particularly areas which rely on buses such as Inner South & South East London - I’m sceptical that had the 249 or 432 not run into the boroughs of Croydon, let alone Bromley, neither would receive frequency increases. I have to say, TfL's how improving outer London does feel like a tokenistic PR stunt |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2023 12:34:13 GMT
Personally I don't think it makes sense. I'd rather they return to its original route
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 31, 2023 16:22:29 GMT
It certainly doesn’t make sense that the 218 departs from the low level bus station and the 306 departs from the high level bus station at Hammersmith. Both should serve the same stop in the high level bus station to provide easy interchange from the Underground and other bus routes.
The first joint westbound stop is in King Street where long dwell times for boarding passengers causes the traffic to tail back onto Hammersmith Broadway, since following the introduction of the King Street cycleway there is no opportunity for any vehicle to overtake a stationary bus at the bus stop. That in turn delays other buses.
You couldn’t make it up!
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 1, 2023 5:54:58 GMT
It certainly doesn’t make sense that the 218 departs from the low level bus station and the 306 departs from the high level bus station at Hammersmith. Both should serve the same stop in the high level bus station to provide easy interchange from the Underground and other bus routes. The first joint westbound stop is in King Street where long dwell times for boarding passengers causes the traffic to tail back onto Hammersmith Broadway, since following the introduction of the King Street cycleway there is no opportunity for any vehicle to overtake a stationary bus at the bus stop. That in turn delays other buses. You couldn’t make it up! This is one of the changes tfl got wrong from the start. The 306 north of Hammersmith is good as useless for anyone who wants Acton town centre. Personally I'd send the 440 back via West Acton giving them a link to CMH and I'd have only the 306 and not introduce the 218 The 306 I'd run from North Acton to Fulham Sands End. Even at the southern end I think it could do with an extension to Wandsworth |
|
